-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Lim Chin Siong was a Communist
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
I am glad couple of people have added much needed clarity. I was very much dismayed by the survey done on students where they had no clue. Even to this day we have singaporeans that are not aware that Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia.
Communism
Communism in Singapore continues to carry connotations equivalent to the era of McCarthyism and no different to a Paedophilia / serial killer and someone with a highly infectious diseases such as SARS. Arthur Lim recounts the occasion when he held a reunion dinner for Dr Poh Soo Kai after his release with invitees that were his close friends and associates. He was surprised that few took up the offer. Many were well heeled and had their own practices and were not beholden to the Govt.
Communism was a nobel course and an attractive ideology in an oppressed land where feudalism and warlordism were order of the day. Those attracted to it were usually from well to do families, who had the luxury of thought and those from the oppressed class that were trying to survive. It was usually the bext and brightest from Oxbridge and intelligentisa that were drawn to it. Its fundamental flaw however was to assume that all men had the same needs and wants and that power does not corrupt. Add that to fatal approach of adopting terror tactics to achieve their goals.
The term pro communist, left leaning, leftist are actually misleading. The most appropriate term would be communist as one forummer clearly put it in respect to Chin Siong - by words and deeds. (And its not a slur) Communist were part of the socialist movement and the PAP at its founding was truly a leftist party and the communist forming the ultra leftist.
They had a common cause - to rid the country of the colonial yoke and move away from being second class citizens. To chart their own course and destiny.
I doubt old man, Keng Swee, Kim San would have ever ventured into communism as they understood economics better than most. But they needed a power base and there was only one - the Chinese speaking disenfrancised lot. It ended up having Mao's United Front Doctrine used against his own comrades.
Communism
Communism in Singapore continues to carry connotations equivalent to the era of McCarthyism and no different to a Paedophilia / serial killer and someone with a highly infectious diseases such as SARS. Arthur Lim recounts the occasion when he held a reunion dinner for Dr Poh Soo Kai after his release with invitees that were his close friends and associates. He was surprised that few took up the offer. Many were well heeled and had their own practices and were not beholden to the Govt.
Communism was a nobel course and an attractive ideology in an oppressed land where feudalism and warlordism were order of the day. Those attracted to it were usually from well to do families, who had the luxury of thought and those from the oppressed class that were trying to survive. It was usually the bext and brightest from Oxbridge and intelligentisa that were drawn to it. Its fundamental flaw however was to assume that all men had the same needs and wants and that power does not corrupt. Add that to fatal approach of adopting terror tactics to achieve their goals.
The term pro communist, left leaning, leftist are actually misleading. The most appropriate term would be communist as one forummer clearly put it in respect to Chin Siong - by words and deeds. (And its not a slur) Communist were part of the socialist movement and the PAP at its founding was truly a leftist party and the communist forming the ultra leftist.
They had a common cause - to rid the country of the colonial yoke and move away from being second class citizens. To chart their own course and destiny.
I doubt old man, Keng Swee, Kim San would have ever ventured into communism as they understood economics better than most. But they needed a power base and there was only one - the Chinese speaking disenfrancised lot. It ended up having Mao's United Front Doctrine used against his own comrades.
<style></style>Let us be frank buddy.In the context of Malaya & Singapore.Who was afraid of communism per ce.Not the vast majority of the locals of course since they have nothing to loose and everything to gain.The colonial powers were but the locals would want them out too.So,why was this great fear called communism in this region?--Because locals feared communalism disguised as communism.In short China's hegemony or rather annexation of the than Malaya & Singapore.
LKY himself is on record saying this.That Deng during his first visit to this region was drumming up support against Russia--the common enemy.LKY claimed that he told Deng that the region view and fears China as their enemy because its the China's supported communist insurgents that they were than fighting against....
Branding Communism in Singapore.
This is where old man and the PAP together with SPH went too far in labelling dissidents and those who disagree with labels of communism. The 2 well known cases are
1) The 1987 Marxist Conspiracy. Ask an RI student in Pre U 2 or even a tertiary student to write a single sentence with the words Marxist Conspiracy and Workers Party in it and they will be lost. The first thing will be what has WP got to do with the Marxist Conspiracy. Many of those involved were actually helping to WP in doing the party newsletter "The Hammer". And guess which party was a threat to the PAP in a democratic elections. Secondly, the closest ideology that emerged was liberation theology and had nothing to do with communism.
2) Felix Soh of SPH Toa Payoh Brothel made a sensational revelation that Harish Sharma and the Necessary Stage was working with an Egyptian Marxist Theatre Group. Tommy Koh stepped in and screwed the shit out of SPH and the story could no longer fly.
For the PAP, the words communist, communism, marxist carries such a powerfull message, that well educated and informed Singaporeans find it hard to even argue otherwise.
This is where old man and the PAP together with SPH went too far in labelling dissidents and those who disagree with labels of communism. The 2 well known cases are
1) The 1987 Marxist Conspiracy. Ask an RI student in Pre U 2 or even a tertiary student to write a single sentence with the words Marxist Conspiracy and Workers Party in it and they will be lost. The first thing will be what has WP got to do with the Marxist Conspiracy. Many of those involved were actually helping to WP in doing the party newsletter "The Hammer". And guess which party was a threat to the PAP in a democratic elections. Secondly, the closest ideology that emerged was liberation theology and had nothing to do with communism.
2) Felix Soh of SPH Toa Payoh Brothel made a sensational revelation that Harish Sharma and the Necessary Stage was working with an Egyptian Marxist Theatre Group. Tommy Koh stepped in and screwed the shit out of SPH and the story could no longer fly.
For the PAP, the words communist, communism, marxist carries such a powerfull message, that well educated and informed Singaporeans find it hard to even argue otherwise.
Read my post carefully. Marx / Engels did not understand "economics". Lim Kim San was no economist. Old man was no economist. The chap who runs Tian Tian Chicken rice understood economics better than Marx and Engels.
If you wrote an article stating that Marx was a great economist, they think you are mad.
If you wrote an article stating that Marx was a great economist, they think you are mad.
true but i find this part abit of an oxymoron going by the nature of various communist governments in power...ussr, prc, cuba, north korea, vietnam etc...
i have always wondered what is the difference between a "non-communist" and an "anti-communist"?
i have always wondered what is the difference between a "non-communist" and an "anti-communist"?
i had not even considered the possible "brutality" element...my pov was just based on economics alone...on balance and all things considered i think chin siong's group would not have done a good job economics wise and that is assuming established commies like Fang/Plen did not get their way...
i recall even chin siong himself was gracious enough to concede in a late interview (with melanie chew before he died) that harry and his group did a relatively good job on the economics front, what was is still lacking is the heart/caring/humanity/welfare aspect...i also recall tan wah piow by and large making such comments afew years ago...
i recall even chin siong himself was gracious enough to concede in a late interview (with melanie chew before he died) that harry and his group did a relatively good job on the economics front, what was is still lacking is the heart/caring/humanity/welfare aspect...i also recall tan wah piow by and large making such comments afew years ago...
Also communism assumes all men are equally productive, which is untrue.
yes...just look at the english cambridge 'mafia' that was drawn to communism like philby,burgess,maclean, cairncross... likewise locally - eber, lim hong bee, lim kean chye, eu, james puthu, sharma etc...
yes...this is where i think marx made a mistake...man is basically flawed and not always 'good'...
i gather dr goh was actually asked by james puthu to join the left at the pivotal moment when the left paps broke from harry...dr goh politely declined but it was nice to see that they parted as true friends...unlike the apparent farcical 'friendship' on parade yesterday between harry and some of the lefties...
yes...this is where i think marx made a mistake...man is basically flawed and not always 'good'...
i gather dr goh was actually asked by james puthu to join the left at the pivotal moment when the left paps broke from harry...dr goh politely declined but it was nice to see that they parted as true friends...unlike the apparent farcical 'friendship' on parade yesterday between harry and some of the lefties...
It doesn't matter.
The key question is whether the life of the ordinary native Singaporean is as good as it should be, and whether this group of people are carrying out their duty to make the lives of ALL Singaporeans better.
The answer to this question should then be reflected in the polls.
History is useful for reference and learning, but it is not that important anymore.
The key question is whether the life of the ordinary native Singaporean is as good as it should be, and whether this group of people are carrying out their duty to make the lives of ALL Singaporeans better.
The answer to this question should then be reflected in the polls.
History is useful for reference and learning, but it is not that important anymore.
Read my post carefully. Marx / Engels did not understand "economics". Lim Kim San was no economist. Old man was no economist. The chap who runs Tian Tian Chicken rice understood economics better than Marx and Engels.If you wrote an article stating that Marx was a great economist, they think you are mad.Why don't you go and read some books before shooting yourself..
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Three-Economics-Maynard-Keynes/dp/0765616947
The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, And John Maynard Keynes
History comes alive in this fascinating story of opposing views that continue to play a fundamental role in today's politics and economics. "The Big Three in Economics" traces the turbulent lives and battle of ideas of the three most influential economists in world history: Adam Smith, representing laissez faire; Karl Marx, reflecting the radical socialist model; and John Maynard Keynes, symbolizing big government and the welfare state. Each view has had a significant influence on shaping the modern world, and the book traces the development of each philosophy through the eyes of its creator. In the twenty-first century, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" model has gained the upper hand, and capitalism appears to have won the battle of ideas over socialism and interventionism. But author Mark Skousen shows that, even in the era of globalization and privatization, Keynesian and Marxian ideas continue to play a significant role in economic policy.
Marx, Hitler, Stalin & Mao played on the world stage and influenced the world. Guess what was the common factor - they all failed and failed comprehensively. They all made Time Magazine.
So you think that Marx was a great economist?
You remind me of Ho Ching - everything she said was good was proven to be bad.
So you think that Marx was a great economist?
You remind me of Ho Ching - everything she said was good was proven to be bad.
Read my post carefully. Marx / Engels did not understand "economics". Lim Kim San was no economist. Old man was no economist. The chap who runs Tian Tian Chicken rice understood economics better than Marx and Engels.If you wrote an article stating that Marx was a great economist, they think you are mad.Why don't you go and read some books before shooting yourself..
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Three-Economics-Maynard-Keynes/dp/0765616947
The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, And John Maynard Keynes
History comes alive in this fascinating story of opposing views that continue to play a fundamental role in today's politics and economics. "The Big Three in Economics" traces the turbulent lives and battle of ideas of the three most influential economists in world history: Adam Smith, representing laissez faire; Karl Marx, reflecting the radical socialist model; and John Maynard Keynes, symbolizing big government and the welfare state. Each view has had a significant influence on shaping the modern world, and the book traces the development of each philosophy through the eyes of its creator. In the twenty-first century, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" model has gained the upper hand, and capitalism appears to have won the battle of ideas over socialism and interventionism. But author Mark Skousen shows that, even in the era of globalization and privatization, Keynesian and Marxian ideas continue to play a significant role in economic policy.
Marx, Hitler, Stalin & Mao played on the world stage and influenced the world. Guess what was the common factor - they all failed and failed comprehensively. They all made Time Magazine. So you think that Marx was a great economist?You remind me of Ho Ching - everything she said was good was proven to be bad.Task,tsk !--loosing your cool ?:p
You said something beyond your depth.I merely pointed out that you ought to read some books before shooting yourself.--There is no shame in gaining knowledge.Nothing to gain in pseudo sarcasm.
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr><td>He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is simple. Teach him.
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Dear Scroobal
Marx is still in all basic economics 101 textbooks :_)) He provided a counter balance to the Adam Smith ideal that the Fee Market corrected for everything
He may not have been great in the sense that he was right, he was great because even though he was wrong he contributed to the body of economic theory by bringing attention to a different side of the free market equation.
The very existence of marxism forced capitalism to adapt its economic redistribution policies so that its inherent capitalism contradictions did not destroy itself
Locke
Marx is still in all basic economics 101 textbooks :_)) He provided a counter balance to the Adam Smith ideal that the Fee Market corrected for everything
He may not have been great in the sense that he was right, he was great because even though he was wrong he contributed to the body of economic theory by bringing attention to a different side of the free market equation.
The very existence of marxism forced capitalism to adapt its economic redistribution policies so that its inherent capitalism contradictions did not destroy itself
Locke
this is one of the most moronic posts i have ever read on sbf.
economics spans a wide spectrum of ideas, from left to right, from communism to capitalism, from bad to good. dismissing someone for lack of understanding just because their ideals are different from others says just about the same thing about oneself... lack of understanding.
after the fiasco on wall street last year (and in 1929), many smiths and keynesians are rethinking the capitalistic model. perhaps, it needs a tweak somewhere to a model that has better checks and balance or more regulatory oversight. they are trying to find and borrow adaptable solutions from hk, sg, taiwan and ironically commie china.
He who knows, and knows that others knows not is insider. Sleep with him.
He who knows, and knows that others must know is whistle-blower. Shoot him.
He who knows, and knows that others must know is whistle-blower. Shoot him.
Marx, Hitler, Stalin & Mao played on the world stage and influenced the world. Guess what was the common factor - they all failed and failed comprehensively. They all made Time Magazine. So you think that Marx was a great economist?You remind me of Ho Ching - everything she said was good was proven to be bad.Task,tsk !--loosing your cool ?:p
You said something beyond your depth.I merely pointed out that you ought to read some books before shooting yourself.--There is no shame in gaining knowledge.Nothing to gain in pseudo sarcasm.
<table border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5"><tbody><tr><td>He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is simple. Teach him.
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise. Follow him.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Last edited:
contributions to economics by karl marx:
http://www.politonomist.com/contributions-to-economics-karl-marx-001451/
good read.
http://www.politonomist.com/contributions-to-economics-karl-marx-001451/
good read.
Not true.
Marx is not the counter to Adam Smith in the same way that Keynes was a counter to the Austrian school.
Fundamentally Marx lacked an understanding of human nature. That was why his theories could not be implemented in their pure form/those who tried failed and had to adopt a highly bastardized version/others succumbed to human folly whilst pursuing his ideals, etc
No surprises.
